Why language acquisition is a snap

Datos Bibliográficos

ID20344285
AutoresStephen Crain (0000-0002-6370-7447, University of Maryland, College Park), Paul Pietroski (0000-0002-6352-8772, University of Maryland, College Park)
Año2002
Volumen18
Número1-2
Fecha de publicación2002-01-26
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaThe Linguistic Review (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0167-6318 • E-ISSN: 1613-3676
EditorialWalter de Gruyter GmbH (PUBLISHER • DE)
DOI10.1515/tlir.19.1-2.163
OpenAlexW1970363993
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas29
Referencias citadas9

Nativists inspired by Chomsky are apt to provide arguments with the follow-ing general form: languages exhibit interesting generalizations that are not suggested by casual (or even intensive) examination of what people actually say; correspondingly, adults (i.e., just about anyone above the age of four) know much more about language than they could plausibly have learned on the basis of their experience; so absent an alternative account of the relevant generalizations and speakers (tacit) knowledge of them, one should conclude that there are substantive universal principles of human grammar and, as a result of human biology, children can only acquire languages that conform to these principles. According to Pullum and Scholz, linguists need not suppose that children are innately endowed with speciÞc contingent facts about nat-ural languages. But Pullum and Scholz dont consider the kinds of facts that really impress nativists. Nor do they offer any plausible acquisition scenarios that would culminate in the acquisition of languages that exhibit the kinds of rich and interrelated generalizations that are exhibited by natural languages. As we stress, good poverty-of-stimulus arguments are based on speciÞc princi-ples conÞrmed by drawing on (negative and crosslinguistic) data unavailable to children that help explain a range of independently established linguistic phenomena. If subsequent psycholinguistic experiments show that very young children already know such principles, that strengthens the case for nativism; and if further investigation shows that children sometimes try out construc-tions that are unattested in the local language, but only if such constructions are attested in other human languages, then the case for nativism is made stronger still. We illustrate these points by considering an apparently disparate but upon closer inspection, interestingly related cluster of phenomena in-volving: negative polarity items, the interpretation of or, binding theory, and displays of Romance and Germanic constructions in Child-English. 164 Stephen Crain and Paul Pietroski 1

Grammar · Language acquisition · Linguistics · Psychological nativism · Theoretical linguistics · Universal Grammar · History · Language Development and Disorders · Philosophy · Phonetics and Phonology Research · Psychology · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation